The Bay Parkade Redevelopment | 315, 271, 239m | 80, 69, 68fl | Proposed

[vanman]

Originally Posted by RedArbutus

I strongly doubt that "locals view for free" thing is going to happen. I'd be casting a skeptical eye at any random developer saying that, and this is Holborn we're talking about here.

I'm thinking they're taking the approach that the observation deck is a public amenity in order to make the unprecedented height more palatable. It would mostly be paying tourists making use of it anyways I'd imagine.

[RedArbutus]

Originally Posted by vanman

I'm thinking they're taking the approach that the observation deck is a public amenity in order to make the unprecedented height more palatable. It would mostly be paying tourists making use of it anyways I'd imagine.

Agreed. I just can see them promising the moon and the city not getting a binding covenant (not just a MOU) to hold them to it.

I'd feel differently if we were London or Singapore, where developers need to stand out from the pack. When they're in the pre-proposal stage, and everything around it is 20-40 storeys shorter, I think this is more just a grand gesture to appear as if it's in more of the public's interest

[idunno]

Glass sponge reefs are such a cool phenomenon and super unique to the PNW coast - I think they're a great inspiration for our tallest buildings!

[LeftCoaster]

I like the design. I'm sure it will see some refinement/revisions but it's a good concept in my opinion.

I also have faith in HPA to stick the landing.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

I like the design. I'm sure it will see some refinement/revisions but it's a good concept in my opinion.

I also have faith in HPA to stick the landing.

Yeah, say what you like about Holborn—and there's plenty to say—but their finished projects have not been disappointments. The Ritz-Carlton Trump Paradox tower came out almost exactly as proposed (and a little bit taller), so I'm ready to be excited for this building.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by Changing City

That's the architect's intention. He has said the design is inspired by glass sponges that grow in reefs in BC waters. They survive by 'eating' plankton and bacteria, filtered from the ocean.

I appreciate what you tell me, and there is certainly a powerful link in the building design. However, the reasoning is very academic, and what we're left to look at are two monsters, the kind that eat people. It's my problem, yes,, but they're grotesque. / It clashes, too out of range/ Now imagine they were built for a woodsy, trees-y science park or such, they'd be perfect, (they might go well in Seattle) but not like in this form, and where they are. I would concede to lowering to 775 ft, but I still find it too "icky" and strange. Personally, I tend to appreciate International Style here and there, post-modern... but's just an opinion.
My POV is too conservative and restrained for most, I know, but I am interested if their is anyone out there who tends to agree.

[Spr0ckets]

Even if it does get built (...this is Holborn, after all. Despite everyone here's over-excitement), it's highly unlikely it will end up looking like that.

This is the type of project that screams (to be)"Value-Engineered to death" from all these early renders.

That skin/envelope alone would likely eat up a massive chunk of their budget before you even go into some of the other more eye-catching features.

Consider how something like Oakridge went from the original renders to what's actually getting built today.
More or less the same will likely happen here.

You're more likely to get your wish (as to how this will end up looking) than others who are getting excited already here.
That's kind of the point of initial renders like this (and why they look unrealistic and usually end up looking that way)

To get people excited.
Job done.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

I was just joking about the pricing but that's good to know. I assume the timeslots will be so limited if it's free.. maybe they'll offer a discounted priority ticket for locals?

They should screen everyone going up, if not charging a minimum even for locals. I don't want drug addicts shooting up there, like on every other alleyway, parks or in front of vacant shops downtown.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

Even if it does get built (...this is Holborn, after all. Despite everyone here's over-excitement), it's highly unlikely it will end up looking like that.

This is the type of project that screams (to be)"Value-Engineered to death" from all these early renders.

That skin/envelope alone would likely eat up a massive chunk of their budget before you even go into some of the other more eye-catching features.

Consider how something like Oakridge went from the original renders to what's actually getting built today.
More or less the same will likely happen here.

You're more likely to get your wish (as to how this will end up looking) than others who are getting excited already here.
That's kind of the point of initial renders like this (and why they look unrealistic and usually end up looking that way)

To get people excited.
Job done.

Oakridge is a Westbank project, not a Holburn project. Might as well be saying Salvador Dali can't be trusted to paint a decent painting because Jackson Pollock exists.

Tell me that the Paradox Hotel building didn't come out essentially as proposed (in fact I think it turned out better).

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

Even if it does get built (...this is Holborn, after all. Despite everyone here's over-excitement), it's highly unlikely it will end up looking like that.

This is the type of project that screams (to be)"Value-Engineered to death" from all these early renders.

That skin/envelope alone would likely eat up a massive chunk of their budget before you even go into some of the other more eye-catching features.

Consider how something like Oakridge went from the original renders to what's actually getting built today.
More or less the same will likely happen here.

You're more likely to get your wish (as to how this will end up looking) than others who are getting excited already here.
That's kind of the point of initial renders like this (and why they look unrealistic and usually end up looking that way)

To get people excited.
Job done.

I mean it's easy to cherry-pick examples that support your position but why don't you tell us how Vancouver House, Butterfly, Kengo Kuma and Senakw were value engineered from the renders. Again I'm not saying the construction quality is any good but as a structure since that's what you're talking about.

The entire basis of the design is on the exoskeletal structure so how are they going to value engineer that? Even if they value engineered every doorknob and water faucet in the building it's still going to stand on the exoskeletal form more than anything else.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

I mean it's easy to cherry-pick examples that support your position but why don't you tell us how Vancouver House, Butterfly, Kengo Kuma and Senakw were value engineered from the renders. Again I'm not saying the construction quality is any good but as a structure since that's what you're talking about.

Sure.

Pick any of those projects and show me their first initial renders and I'll point out exactly how and where they were value-engineered substantially from what was first proposed to what eventually got built.
And I'm "cherry-picking" just as much as you literally just did.

Originally Posted by jollyburger

The entire basis of the design is on the exoskeletal structure so how are they going to value engineer that? Even if they value engineered every doorknob and water faucet in the building it's still going to stand on the exoskeletal form more than anything else.

That might be the reason why that particular feature is the one with least resolution in that render.
Let's not forget that it's not the structural engineers (Who are the ones that will design that system) that did those renders.

It's the architect.

I'm betting the engineer's version will be more grounded (literally and figuratively) in reality and may not be as expressive.


It's a rare project that's able to go through the application and permits project and retain every essence of what it looks like from the initial proposal renderings, and that's just a function of how the industry works.

The more "eye-catching" or expressive those first proposal renderings are, the more likely it will get value-engineered and likewise the more of it there wille be.
It's not a hard and fast rule, but it's the general trend of how these projects get executed in a real world where construction costs only go in one direction, and other factors invariably coming into play during the life of the project.

[Spr0ckets]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Oakridge is a Westbank project, not a Holburn project. Might as well be saying Salvador Dali can't be trusted to paint a decent painting because Jackson Pollock exists.

What the hell does the developer involved have to do with anything in the point I was making?

Value-engineering is a fact of architecture and building construction, and doesn't really give a crap which architect or developer is involved.

That along with the reality of construction economics.

Originally Posted by chowhou

Tell me that the Paradox Hotel building didn't come out essentially as proposed (in fact I think it turned out better).

Indeed.

And look at how different the two buildings are in form and expression and maybe you might see why value-engineering is more likely in one case and wasn't in the other.

If you have an architect who designs your project closer to how the building will likely get constructed, then that will help lower the chances it will get value-engineered. Experience obviously helps a lot in this case.

Clearly that was the case with Paradox.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

That might be the reason why that particular feature is the one with least resolution in that render.
Let's not forget that it's not the structural engineers (Who are the ones that will design that system) that did those renders.

Okay, I'll bite. Which rendering are you talking about?

I'm betting the engineer's version will be more grounded (literally and figuratively) in reality and may not be as expressive.

I mean they consulted with Arup on it from the start.

Developed in collaboration with international engineering leader Arup, the structural system references the skeletal lattice of sea sponges — a concept researched at Harvard for its groundbreaking structural efficiency.

https://holborn.ca/wp-content/upload...ouver-BC-2.pdf

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Oakridge is a Westbank project, not a Holburn project. Might as well be saying Salvador Dali can't be trusted to paint a decent painting because Jackson Pollock exists.

Tell me that the Paradox Hotel building didn't come out essentially as proposed (in fact I think it turned out better).

From that thread:

Originally Posted by bb1510

That's because Holborn cheaped out and didn't install these brushes or mechanisms in the elevators so when you're going up, they 'shake' and 'rumble' incredibly during day to day usage.

Property manager said strata is looking to installing these but they are quite costly at around 10-20k per elevator.

The window bulletin is only when there are high winds.


Been at Shangri La numerous times, both estates and live/work units; no issues with shaking or rumbling whatsoever. Also, the lack of a dedicated freight elevator is a problem (well there is one that serves both residential and hotel but essentially leaves the residential portion with two elevators when a move is in process and during peak hours (when everyone is going to work), sometimes you'll be waiting for ten minutes for the elevator to your floor, which is totally not acceptable for what this project was marketed as imo.

Shangri La has two elevators dedicated for estates (around 40ish units) three for live work, one freight for everything (which can be used when there's no move but smells like trash as it's used for garbage removal).


Also, strata fees aren't that high for a property of this segment; it's at $0.75 psf right now. Shangri La is at around $1.25 psf and there's actually still an ongoing lawsuit with the developer regarding hotel cost sharing. Currently, free EV charging at Trump but I believe you have to pay at Shangri La; same as move ins, free at Trump, couple hundred non refundable at Shangri La - even for a delivery of just one large item and not a full move in.

Do you think part of the reason for this would be how slender the building is vs how much 'fatter' Shangri La is? Not to mention how much more rigid the structure at Shangri La would be given its denser core. Also, Trump has two 'water sloshing tanks' on the roof similar to a tuned mass damper already.

**oops, just read the article and noticed it already mentioned the shaking; apologies for the redundancy**

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by logan5

Those towers look ridiculously taller than everything else, like some kind of circus side show freaks. We'll need some surrounding towers in the 600 to 800 foot range, so things step down naturally.

One Wall Centre looked the same way when it was built.

[bb1510]

Originally Posted by whatnext

From that thread:

lol, I should also add, back in the days when 1151 West Georgia was the Ritz Carlton Vancouver, Yabu Pushelberg was hired for the ID for the hotel component, who is pretty much your go to ID firm for Aman's, Flagship Four Seasons, Park Hyatt's, Mandarin Oriental, etc sort of hospitality project.

If you take a look at the old Trump/Paradox upper lobby/champagne lounge, there is a strong resemblance, albeit value engineered, to the lobby of the Park Hyatt in NY, which is Park Hyatt's flagship project and was done by Yabu Pushelberg. YP's principals have admitted verbally to me that they notice a strong resemblance themselves.

Holborn hired BOX interior design to do the Paradox, both the hotel and residential component. I've also seen the original room concepts produced by BOX and aesthetically, they were more inline to those at the Park Hyatt Bangkok before ownership decided on redesigning the rooms internally with the tufted headboards and teal accented rooms. BOX said they had nothing to do with that change nor do they want to be associated with that, hence why you do not the Paradox listed anywhere on BOX's website even though it's a significant project.

YP's fees typically run around 5-6x of a local ID firm.

[bb1510]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

I mean it's easy to cherry-pick examples that support your position but why don't you tell us how Vancouver House, Butterfly, Kengo Kuma and Senakw were value engineered from the renders. Again I'm not saying the construction quality is any good but as a structure since that's what you're talking about.

The entire basis of the design is on the exoskeletal structure so how are they going to value engineer that? Even if they value engineered every doorknob and water faucet in the building it's still going to stand on the exoskeletal form more than anything else.

Actually the Butterfly was significantly value engineered. There were multiple concepts, which I'm not sure if it made it to the public, where it was two separated towers that were undulating in terms of width and floorplate size

[officedweller]

The grid at Burrard Place was supposed to be architectural concrete, but isn't and had to be painted.
The grid on the 2 lesser towers seems similar to Burrard Place.

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by bb1510

Actually the Butterfly was significantly value engineered. There were multiple concepts, which I'm not sure if it made it to the public, where it was two separated towers that were undulating in terms of width and floorplate size

But isn't there a distinction from some architectural concept/sketch being "value engineered" versus a rezoning/developing application being "value engineered" with cheaper materials or other fundamental parts of the building design.

Was it related to this model?



https://images.adsttc.com/media/imag...jpg?1510790486

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by officedweller

The grid at Burrard Place was supposed to be architectural concrete, but isn't and had to be painted.
The grid on the 2 lesser towers seems similar to Burrard Place.

That guy who seemed to have a lot of inside information on Burrard Place said it was an engineering decision so it might have not been a "value" change per se? I mean wouldn't they have known the costs of the concrete and not change mid-construction if it was just to save money? He does say it was exponentially more expensive + didn't fit with their pour cycle.

Hi Rofina. There is quite a history on this white concrete.

The specification of the original white concrete is a high flow concrete mix which requires a mix inhibitor that results to super high temperature when curing.
In addition, the waffle wall (what we call the facade that looks like honeycomb) is part of the overall cycle of the slab pour which needs to be 7 days.
As some of the columns in the waffle wall are imperative to the schedule cycle, they require to be stripped down within days of pour.
Also, the intent on the white concrete is that once stripped, it would not require sacking and grinding, and would only need to be sealed.

Now, here are the four main reasons why the white concrete was changed to the gray concrete.
1. the pour from Level 1-9 (which was up to where the white concrete was poured) was poured in the summer of 2018. The high heat curing nature of the white concrete plus the heat in the summer resulted to major crackings on the beams of the waffle wall. Rebars became exposed and it presented a great challenge in both deficiency work and structural/envelope redesign.
2. The high flow concrete takes 11-12 days cycle which is a problem on scheduling. The cycle per slab pour was suppose to be 7 days. As with any other construction, the structure (until the finishes hit) is the critical path of the project.
3. The white concrete is exponentially expensive. The costs difference between changing to "gray" concrete with white elastomeric and traffic coating, vs pure white concrete is substantial and is a benefit to the developers. Obviously, the redesign presented new set challenges but thats for another discussion.
4. It was observed that the crackings on white concrete continued to occur 4-5 weeks after stripping. It was an engineering nightmare for both structural and envelope to mitigate and fix the cracks.

From Level 10 up to the top, the concrete will be gray with a coat of both elastomeric and traffic (alsans) coating.

Hopefully this answers the question.

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...te#post9346985